Court orders SWAT team to break into house and take child to hospital for minor head injury

[torpid]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I have one big question:

Torpid, what kind of medical background do YOU have that gives any credibility, whatsoever, to your *opinion* that medical equipment and advanced training was necessary?

What sort of medical background did the medic have? 10 weeks of combined training over a dozen fields of expertise, over 30 years ago. I am not claiming to be a medical expert. I am claiming that the guy saying "I was a vietnam medic, I know how to treat it" would not make me even remotely confident that the guy had adequate medical knowledge to treat a major head wound, and that alone does not make this fool's actions justifiable.

btw, what equipment is this that you speak of? Are you implying that every time a child bumps their head, they should have a CT scan?

No, I'm implying that SOME kids will need one.

For the patient with concussion and contusion, observation and management of increased <if present> ICP are the pripary management strategies"
ICP: increased cranial pressure
Clinical manifestations of ICP: (and will differ for different parts of the brain)

• Change in level of consciousness
  ocular signs
  temperature may go up
  decrease in motor functions
  headache
  vomitting

The kid had ocular signs. Did you bother to read the OP or any of the numerous posts in this thread?

So, Mr. I'm not a medical expert, but I'm still going to tell people what kind of medical care they need anyway,

That is the JOB OF THE CASE WORKER. The case worker was doing their job. The sheriff was doing his job. The judge was doing his job. The only one who did not seem to be doing a good job was the father, because he refused a court order and could have been arrested, which is certainly not a good thing for a father of 10 kids to do.

From the case worker's perspective

A) The guy could have been lying
B) Even if he weren't lying, the case worker saw signs of serious injury

What I'm reading seems to contradict what you think is necessary.
"My son just puked!" Think that takes a lot of special training to recognize? Something that *you'd* forget how to recognize after 10 years?

It was 30 years. And a "huge" bruise and unresponsive eye would make me worry enough to seek at least some degree of medical attention. But that's irrelevant, because a court order and sheriff at my door sure as hell would make me take my kid in.

Do you think that every time a child bumps their head or gets a bruise, they should go to the ER? No wonder the cost of medical insurance is going up so much! You're talking about $1000 in costs, or more, just so the doctor can say "well, put some ice on it and take some tylenol. Bring him back in if his symptoms change."

edit: I am not a doctor, but at least I backed up my opinion; something you haven't done in the dozen or so posts you've had in this thread. In the end, it sounds very much like the combat veteran was right. I'll personally ask for a real doctor's opinion on this one.

The combat veteran was right by REFUSING THE COURT ORDER? Are you serious? That is about the dumbest conclusion you can possibly draw. I don't care if you are the world's most skilled doctor... if you refuse a court order requiring you to take your kids in, then you are wrong, PERIOD. Regardless of whether you were right about your diagnosis, the fact is that he disobeyed the law.

You have not backed up anything except the idea that IF, note that is a big if, the medic had adequate knowledge about how to assess a head injury some 30+ years after his training, then he was right to not seek medical attention. You have provided ZERO evidence that the medic, after thirty years (yes, vietnam was in fact more than 10 years ago), still knew the information you posted, or that anyone should believe that his training over 30 years ago for 10 weeks was adequate.

 

[tranceport]

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
The case workers were already looking at this family for reasons not mentioned in this article. If there was a history of abuse then they would be suspicious with good reason. Sure it was a mistake, but nobody got hurt because of it. They could have avoided the whole foolishness by taking the kid to the doctor when the Sheriff notified them.

Being quite familar with swat I don't think you understand what it is like for swat to enter a home. Usually the property is damaged from the entry. They do not knock and open the door.

1. Intel is gathered on the location with a recon team if time permits. When serving a warrant this is always done. Entry ways are assed such as doors and windows.
2. If 2 doors usually 2 teams will enter at the same time through the doors. The doors are either smashed in or blown open. Usually smashed if not ripped out via APC.
3. They are weapons free if you appear to be a threat.

Very lucky there was not loss of life here.

I will say that all of this action is avoided if possible. You should watch Dallas Swat.. it is usually pretty accurate although dramatized.

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Citrix
by your logic i should take my kids to ER everytime they skin their knee or hit in the head with a soccerball/basketball... stop sticking your nose in my business.

No, you should take your kid to a doctor when a sheriff shows up at your house with a court order requiring you to take the kid to a doctor. Then you don't get SWAT on your ass.

and i would tell the sheriff to fuck off, my kids are not state property.

Go ahead, but don't act like a victim when they bring SWAT in to your home because you refuse to comply with court orders.

oh i can guarantee you i wont play victim, my role would be more like lottery winner.

 

[OutHouse]

What sort of medical background did the medic have? 10 weeks of combined training over a dozen fields of expertise, over 30 years ago. I am not claiming to be a medical expert. I am claiming that the guy saying "I was a vietnam medic, I know how to treat it" would not make me even remotely confident that the guy had adequate medical knowledge to treat a major head wound, and that alone does not make this fool's actions justifiable.

ummm again. the combat Vietnam medic was right his kid DID NOT HAVE A MAJOR HEAD INJURY!!!

maybe you should have your head examined because you just cant understand that.

 

[rbV5]

if you refuse a court order requiring you to take your kids in, then you are wrong, PERIOD. Regardless of whether you were right about your diagnosis, the fact is that he disobeyed the law.

Bullshit, it means you are caught up in the a system that studies (in Oregon...my State)
commissioned by the Oregon Legislature shows that well over 80% of actions against families, including the taking of their children, was entirely unjustified and unreasonable.

These agencies abuse their power. disregard the rules the are supposed to follow and have to be forced by the courts to even obey the 4th amendment.

You're just making this crap up because you "think" it sounds right, but you are wrong..take 2 minutes on Google and educate yourself. This is just another case of abuse BY the system.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Citrix
ummm again. the combat Vietnam medic was right his kid DID NOT HAVE A MAJOR HEAD INJURY!!!

maybe you should have your head examined because you just cant understand that.

He was right about the head injury, but he still cost taxpayers thousands of dollars by refusing the court order. We also have no way of knowing if he was right about the injury by pure luck.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: rbV5

if you refuse a court order requiring you to take your kids in, then you are wrong, PERIOD. Regardless of whether you were right about your diagnosis, the fact is that he disobeyed the law.

Bullshit, it means you are caught up in the a system that studies (in Oregon...my State)
commissioned by the Oregon Legislature shows that well over 80% of actions against families, including the taking of their children, was entirely unjustified and unreasonable.

These agencies abuse their power. disregard the rules the are supposed to follow and have to be forced by the courts to even obey the 4th amendment.

You're just making this crap up because you "think" it sounds right, but you are wrong..take 2 minutes on Google and educate yourself. This is just another case of abuse BY the system.

I tried googling and I can find nothing remotely close to what you are claiming. Got a link?

Regardless, disobeying a court order is still illegal and the guy cost taxpayers thousands of dollars by refusing the sheriff.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Citrix
ummm again. the combat Vietnam medic was right his kid DID NOT HAVE A MAJOR HEAD INJURY!!!

maybe you should have your head examined because you just cant understand that.

He was right about the head injury, but he still cost taxpayers thousands of dollars by refusing the court order. We also have no way of knowing if he was right about the injury by pure luck.

^you're an idiot^; case closed

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Citrix
ummm again. the combat Vietnam medic was right his kid DID NOT HAVE A MAJOR HEAD INJURY!!!

maybe you should have your head examined because you just cant understand that.

He was right about the head injury, but he still cost taxpayers thousands of dollars by refusing the court order. We also have no way of knowing if he was right about the injury by pure luck.

^you're an idiot^; case closed

At least I am not one who makes up stats and gets belligerent when someone suggests that disobeying the law is unethical.

 

[DrPizza]

I am not claiming to be a medical expert. I am claiming that the guy saying "I was a vietnam medic, I know how to treat it" would not make me even remotely confident that the guy had adequate medical knowledge to treat a major head wound, and that alone does not make this fool's actions justifiable.

But, you ARE claiming that you are enough of a medical expert to know that the guy couldn't know enough about a head injury. Apparently, you never played in organized sports (football, basketball, etc.) Any coach or trainer will immediately try to assess whether a child has a concussion after a head injury. It's pretty simple to do. And, just to cover their asses, they will recommend that the parent take the child to a doctor or ER. Face it... concussions are pretty common, even among children. Most of us would recognize the symptoms between an "ordinary" concussion and a life threatening medical problem. You apparently would not. Now, of course, you can google for the 3 or 4 sensationalized stories about how after the slightest bump to the head, someone died 4 hours later. (I'm sure there's going to be at least one such story out there.) However, even at the ER, those aren't going to get caught - if the kid isn't displaying more than a slow pupil, they're most likely not going to order thousands of dollars worth of workups.

The CPS abused their power. I'm not denying that there was a court order... But, there should never have been a court order in this case. It's unfortunate that people like you are defending this abuse. Why should someone incur thousands of dollars of costs (assuming he doesn't have health insurance) to themselves because of some over-zealous idiots who aren't medically trained whatsoever? Read rbV5's post.

 

[FlashG]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
62 y/o? 10kids? stop.having.kids.now.

Whats the problem? I say more power to him as long as he can provide for them.

 

[rbV5]

At least I am not one who makes up stats and gets belligerent when someone suggests that disobeying the law is unethical.

Yes, I'm suggesting that the Oregon CPS has a long history of disobeying the law and acting unethical. I'll find you a good link, the Oregon Legislature requested the study because of the huge amounts of abuse of power complaints. I'm making nothing up.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
But, you ARE claiming that you are enough of a medical expert to know that the guy couldn't know enough about a head injury.

No, I am claiming enough COMMON SENSE to know that I wouldn't necessarily believe someone who claimed they did have enough medical expertise because they were a combat medic over 30 years ago. I suggest you carefully read everything I posted again. Aside from the numerous errors you made in your previous post, you are offering a fundamental misrepresentation of what I wrote in numerous places. You asked about equipment then said basically the same thing I did, for example... that a kid with a serious injury might need expensive equipment.

However, even at the ER, those aren't going to get caught - if the kid isn't displaying more than a slow pupil, they're most likely not going to order thousands of dollars worth of workups.

The book you quoted mentioned ocular issues. There was an ocular issue. Which part of the book discusses which ocular issues are adequate? Can we get a quote from that just so that it doesn't seem like you are completely changing the target of your argument? I mean you went through the effort of posting that quote and all... the least you could do is follow through.

The CPS abused their power. I'm not denying that there was a court order... But, there should never have been a court order in this case. It's unfortunate that people like you are defending this abuse. Why should someone incur thousands of dollars of costs (assuming he doesn't have health insurance) to themselves because of some over-zealous idiots who aren't medically trained whatsoever? Read rbV5's post.

Because it's the damned law. The law... you know, that thing you are supposed to obey?

Shouldn't your argument be for medical training of workers? If a lay person saw the bruise and eye don't you think they might have the exact same reaction? The worker did what they thought was in the best interest of the child. The father broke the law.

Do you really think the father would have ended up paying thousands of dollars out of his pocket? More likely he'd pay nothing and the hospital would eat the charges. In many states they offer health insurance for children, BTW. I haven't researched colorado but here in WI he would likely have such coverage. There is also the fact that he is a veteran and likely has veteran's health coverage, which is QUITE good.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

I am not claiming to be a medical expert. I am claiming that the guy saying "I was a vietnam medic, I know how to treat it" would not make me even remotely confident that the guy had adequate medical knowledge to treat a major head wound, and that alone does not make this fool's actions justifiable.

But, you ARE claiming that you are enough of a medical expert to know that the guy couldn't know enough about a head injury. Apparently, you never played in organized sports (football, basketball, etc.) Any coach or trainer will immediately try to assess whether a child has a concussion after a head injury. It's pretty simple to do. And, just to cover their asses, they will recommend that the parent take the child to a doctor or ER. Face it... concussions are pretty common, even among children. Most of us would recognize the symptoms between an "ordinary" concussion and a life threatening medical problem. You apparently would not. Now, of course, you can google for the 3 or 4 sensationalized stories about how after the slightest bump to the head, someone died 4 hours later. (I'm sure there's going to be at least one such story out there.) However, even at the ER, those aren't going to get caught - if the kid isn't displaying more than a slow pupil, they're most likely not going to order thousands of dollars worth of workups.

The CPS abused their power. I'm not denying that there was a court order... But, there should never have been a court order in this case. It's unfortunate that people like you are defending this abuse. Why should someone incur thousands of dollars of costs (assuming he doesn't have health insurance) to themselves because of some over-zealous idiots who aren't medically trained whatsoever? Read rbV5's post.

EXACTLY!

this was a case that should never have had a court order. the parent had more then enought training (more then billions of other parents) to make the decision if the kid had to go to the ER.


this is just of a over-zealous case worker who had no idea wtf they were doing. one that is to protect children who caused damage and not helped.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: rbV5

At least I am not one who makes up stats and gets belligerent when someone suggests that disobeying the law is unethical.

Yes, I'm suggesting that the Oregon CPS has a long history of disobeying the law and acting unethical. I'll find you a good link, the Oregon Legislature requested the study because of the huge amounts of abuse of power complaints. I'm making nothing up.

The 80% stat was from some random tripod site. Other articles mentioning the same study have nothing close to a stat like that. There is one stat that a civilian review board disagreed with 40something percent of actions.

However, this story took place in colorado, not oregon. Not all CPS agencies are equal.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: rbV5

At least I am not one who makes up stats and gets belligerent when someone suggests that disobeying the law is unethical.

Yes, I'm suggesting that the Oregon CPS has a long history of disobeying the law and acting unethical. I'll find you a good link, the Oregon Legislature requested the study because of the huge amounts of abuse of power complaints. I'm making nothing up.

The 80% stat was from some random tripod site. Other articles mentioning the same study have nothing close to a stat like that. There is one stat that a civilian review board disagreed with 40something percent of actions.

However, this story took place in colorado, not oregon. Not all CPS agencies are equal.

The 80% was reported on the news here, so I'm sure that is probably the number used. I used Oregon as an example because I'm familiar with it personally. It's a National issue however, it doesn't take much research to see how system that places 100% immunity on reporters of child abuse gets horribly abused by people with agendas...(usually divorce case)

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: torpid
I don't know if a full swat team was necessary but otherwise I say good for the court. Let's take this into consideration:

A) It was a trailer park
B) At least 7 people live in one trailer
C) They have a case worker visiting them
D) The kid appeared seriously injured to a case worker
E) The father refused to comply with the initial demand from a sheriff that he take his kid for medical attention
F) Even if the father worked as a medic several dozen years ago, that does not mean he had adequate equipment or expertise to treat a serious head injury

a) so the poor can't make decisions?
b) again so what?
c) again so what?
d) the case worker has NO TRAINING in it.
e) why should he have to? the man (only one in the whole thing) has medical training.
f) you do not need anything ot know if he has a concussion or such.


in short this is bullshit and overkill.

A-C) Just some poor, like people who think medic training from the vietnam era is enough to replace doctors with medical degrees and real medical equipment.
D) Neither did the father. The purpose of a case worker is to ensure the welfare of people.
E) Not for dozens of years, and not anywhere near the training that is required to assess a head injury.
F) You need training and equipment if it's a serious concussion

I don't know about you but if a sheriff comes to visit my family shortly after a case worker does, and tells me I have to take my kid in for medical attention, I'm going to do it instead of refusing.

a-c) i am willing to bed the training the medic recieved in vietnam is far better then the case worker, sheriff and good portion of the poeple here.
d) he did have training. enough to know if the child needs to go to the emergancy room or not
e) so every time a child falls we should take them to the emergancy room? are you fucking nuts?
F)see E

if a sheriff tells me i have to do something that is none of his businesss i will tell him to fuck off.

i don't feel like wading through pages 2 and 3, and I like this post.

i agree with waggy here. And honestly, a lot of regular soldiers in general know what is non-ER material, even as basic as basic first aid training is, you get used to the kind of physical abuse that tends to end in those kind of injuries anyhow.. we tend to feel the pain that just accompanies a bad fall and the resulting massive lump. That purple lump on the head after a fall? It does NOT need medical attention, god dammit. Unless its oozing, it can even have a small gash and get away with just gauzing up the wound. I'm telling you, this kid right here (me)...the damned monkey I was as a kid, had a lot of nasty spills, lot of running into things at high speeds (tether ball poll that was on the blacktop during a game of blacktop football )), yea, that bump was nasty as hell, right on the forehead. Ice pack was my friend), etc etc. I was hurt.. a lot. I fell off my bmx bike at a damn good speed when racing myself and tumbled on the road a few times. Those road burns, well.. burnt like hell when treating them. Ugh I never had peroxide just burn like that, bad road burns I say. Hell, how I gone this long with a break, I don't know. Never was the most healthy eater, but I sure loved milk and chocolate milk especially. Who cares if I added Nesquick alot (although i like ovaltine a lot more these days), and a lot of it.. damn stuff tasted good, and still got that tasty vitamin d. Liked flinsto....
wow, k..
point being, if it doesn't appear bad, it's obvious it doesn't need treatment. Anyone whose been through military training, especially combat medic training, or was raised when America wasn't so damned soft - like it is now and has been growing basically while I was wrong and through now. 90s came and went and America went downhill into a greedy society that would sue over anything that could basically get hurt with. Let kids grow up, get bumps on the head, concussions etc.. it's a part of normal childhood. Teaches kids to be less wimpy, not like damned kids raised in the burbs these days.. all punks who grow up like weak shrimp because they basically had no violence among children, and brothers were raised to not fight each other violently.. eck it's sick. If my sister were a brother, we would have had fist fights. And then I probably would have fought more in school because people pissed me the hell off and I wanted to.
wow why the hell am I typing stories.
point's been made, i'm done.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: rbV5

At least I am not one who makes up stats and gets belligerent when someone suggests that disobeying the law is unethical.

Yes, I'm suggesting that the Oregon CPS has a long history of disobeying the law and acting unethical. I'll find you a good link, the Oregon Legislature requested the study because of the huge amounts of abuse of power complaints. I'm making nothing up.

The 80% stat was from some random tripod site. Other articles mentioning the same study have nothing close to a stat like that. There is one stat that a civilian review board disagreed with 40something percent of actions.

However, this story took place in colorado, not oregon. Not all CPS agencies are equal.

The 80% was reported on the news here, so I'm sure that is probably the number used. I used Oregon as an example because I'm familiar with it personally. It's a National issue however, it doesn't take much research to see how system that places 100% immunity on reporters of child abuse gets horribly abused by people with agendas...(usually divorce case)

yeap. i trust CPS people about as far as i can throw them. My wife and were emergency foster parents (if someone was going on vacation or such). so we know a few CPS people and the stories i have heard terrify me. they look for any reason to be involved.

one got busted for makeing shit up.

 

[rbV5]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: rbV5

At least I am not one who makes up stats and gets belligerent when someone suggests that disobeying the law is unethical.

Yes, I'm suggesting that the Oregon CPS has a long history of disobeying the law and acting unethical. I'll find you a good link, the Oregon Legislature requested the study because of the huge amounts of abuse of power complaints. I'm making nothing up.

The 80% stat was from some random tripod site. Other articles mentioning the same study have nothing close to a stat like that. There is one stat that a civilian review board disagreed with 40something percent of actions.

However, this story took place in colorado, not oregon. Not all CPS agencies are equal.

The 80% was reported on the news here, so I'm sure that is probably the number used. I used Oregon as an example because I'm familiar with it personally. It's a National issue however, it doesn't take much research to see how system that places 100% immunity on reporters of child abuse gets horribly abused by people with agendas...(usually divorce case)

yeap. i trust CPS people about as far as i can throw them. My wife and were emergency foster parents (if someone was going on vacation or such). so we know a few CPS people and the stories i have heard terrify me. they look for any reason to be involved.

one got busted for makeing shit up.

Shit hit the fan here a few years ago when they took a fireman's kid from his family. They weren't like most of the poor folks they usually pick on, and they fought back. They got the media involved and people really started taking notice. Stories started popping out of the woodwork. Thats when references to the Legislative report became public and ultimately the Oregon Legislature made reforms to the (now DHS) here in Oregon. Scary folks.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: rbV5

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: rbV5

At least I am not one who makes up stats and gets belligerent when someone suggests that disobeying the law is unethical.

Yes, I'm suggesting that the Oregon CPS has a long history of disobeying the law and acting unethical. I'll find you a good link, the Oregon Legislature requested the study because of the huge amounts of abuse of power complaints. I'm making nothing up.

The 80% stat was from some random tripod site. Other articles mentioning the same study have nothing close to a stat like that. There is one stat that a civilian review board disagreed with 40something percent of actions.

However, this story took place in colorado, not oregon. Not all CPS agencies are equal.

The 80% was reported on the news here, so I'm sure that is probably the number used. I used Oregon as an example because I'm familiar with it personally. It's a National issue however, it doesn't take much research to see how system that places 100% immunity on reporters of child abuse gets horribly abused by people with agendas...(usually divorce case)

yeap. i trust CPS people about as far as i can throw them. My wife and were emergency foster parents (if someone was going on vacation or such). so we know a few CPS people and the stories i have heard terrify me. they look for any reason to be involved.

one got busted for makeing shit up.

Shit hit the fan here a few years ago when they took a fireman's kid from his family. They weren't like most of the poor folks they usually pick on, and they fought back. They got the media involved and people really started taking notice. Stories started popping out of the woodwork. Thats when references to the Legislative report became public and ultimately the Oregon Legislature made reforms to the (now DHS) here in Oregon. Scary folks.

Though it is far better then it was in the 80's when they were nailing anyone they could for child mollestation.

 

[ric1287]

Originally posted by: tranceport

Originally posted by: AMCRambler
The case workers were already looking at this family for reasons not mentioned in this article. If there was a history of abuse then they would be suspicious with good reason. Sure it was a mistake, but nobody got hurt because of it. They could have avoided the whole foolishness by taking the kid to the doctor when the Sheriff notified them.

Being quite familar with swat I don't think you understand what it is like for swat to enter a home. Usually the property is damaged from the entry. They do not knock and open the door.

1. Intel is gathered on the location with a recon team if time permits. When serving a warrant this is always done. Entry ways are assed such as doors and windows.
2. If 2 doors usually 2 teams will enter at the same time through the doors. The doors are either smashed in or blown open. Usually smashed if not ripped out via APC.
3. They are weapons free if you appear to be a threat.

Very lucky there was not loss of life here.

I will say that all of this action is avoided if possible. You should watch Dallas Swat.. it is usually pretty accurate although dramatized.

pretttttty sure they didn't blow and flashbang the doors of a trailer with 6 children inside.

 

[DrPizza]

"Deaths from head injury trauma occur at 3 time points after injury; immediately after the injury, within 2 hours after the injury, and approximately 3 weeks after the injury. The majority of deaths after a head injury occur immediately after the injury, either from the direct head trauma or from massive hemorrhage and shock. Deaths occurring within a few hours of the trauma are caused by progressive worsening of the head injury or from internal bleeding. An immediate note of change in neurological status and surgical intervention are critical in the prevention of death at this point. Deaths occurring 3 weeks or more after injury result from multi-system failure"

In other words, the kid didn't immediately die. If it were life-threatening, there would have been an obvious noticeable change in the symptoms from the immediate symptoms. i.e. how his pupils reacted would have changed. That one pupil reacted slower than the other indicates that there was a concussion. Big deal. (the book goes on about specific nerves and stuff, but I don't want to type 20 pages.) If the bleeding continued, then the problem would worsen with potentially the other eye also becoming affected.

"Statistics regarding the occurrence of head injuries are incomplete because many victims die at the scene of the accident, or because the condition is considered minor and health care is not sought." In other words, no one knows how frequently children have concussions and don't seek medical treatment. However, torpid would like to point out that the vast majority of those parents don't have the medical knowledge necessary to determine that the condition is minor. Shame on those parents!

"Concussion (a sudden transient mechanical head injury with disruption of neural activity and change in level of consciousness) is considered a MINOR head injury. If the patient has not lost consciousness or the loss of consciousness lasts less than 5 minutes, the patient is usually discharged from the care facility with instructions to notify the physician if symptoms persist or if behavior changes are noted." (from the same text I quoted far above.)

Torpid, as many of us have said (or implied), it WAS a minor injury. The average parent is sufficiently capable of assessing their own child for a life-threatening injury in this case. From earlier in the thread: "a-c) Irrelevant, it's not enough to render a valid medical opinion d) he had outdated training and there is no reason to believe it was adequate to assess whether the kid is seriously injured or not. " These are the points I'm disputing with you; the father was more than capable of properly assessing the situation - it doesn't take that much training to know what to do with minor head injuries.

I really wasn't intending on attacking the other position - that the father should have simply complied with a court order. Everyone has to pick their own battles, and that's not one that I would have picked. But, if this were 50 years ago, would you be saying that "well, it serves Rosa Parks right. The law said she had to sit in the back of the bus and she refused. She deserved to get arrested. Next time she should just listen to what the authorities tell her to do." Sometimes the court system works well to fight against injustices. Other times, people need to stand up for their rights.

Overall though, I'm somewhat in agreement with you - if CPS was involved, maybe there is a problem with the family, and maybe the situation called for more drastic measures to enforce the court order. Maybe there's a history of abuse at that household. If that's the case, then those circumstances would change my opinion of whether or not the child should have been forcibly removed from the home for evaluation. But, I don't know why CPS was involved; none of us here do.

If the situation was simply: great family; caring parents
kid falls, gets hurt
Nosy neighbor tells father, "I think you should take him to the hopital"
(I'm imagining some readneck pronouncing hospital without the "s")
Father says, "he'll be fine"
Neighbor calls CPS, CPS says "you're such an abusive parent! Take him to hospital"
Father says, "he's just fine."
Then, in that scenario, the father was simply standing up for what he believes is right.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Didn't read the article, but I listened to an interview with the father on the radio. From what he said, I thought there was no caseworker checking out the family on a regular basis, but rather one went to check on the child after one of the paramedics that initially went to the house to check on the boy called Social Services.

 

[Xyclone]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
62 y/o? 10kids? stop.having.kids.now.

QFT. But, they live in a trailer park... so...

 

[Throckmorton]

I thought healthcare for poor people was unamerican, much less forced healthcare for poor people.